list_wireless_vlansRetrieve wireless VLAN configurations from an iKuai router to inspect wireless network segmentation and manage connected wireless clients.
列出无线终端 VLAN 配置
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on scope, pagination, or what the listing contains. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short phrase with no waste, but also no structure to speak of — there is no front-loaded scoping or qualifying clause because there is essentially nothing beyond the name restated in Chinese.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and the tool is parameterless, so return values and inputs are covered by structured data; the remaining gap is the absence of any context on what these VLANs are or how they differ from list_vlan_configs. Adequate but minimal for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description cannot be faulted for missing parameter detail. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (无线终端 VLAN 配置), so the agent knows it returns wireless-terminal VLAN configuration. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling list_vlan_configs, leaving the scope boundary (wireless terminal VLANs vs. general VLAN configs) implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the near-identical sibling list_vlan_configs that an agent could easily confuse it with. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.